1: There is an inherent flaw in the resolution. When saying that laws can be broken to protect animal rights, this leaves a huge gap in clarification. One does not know which laws and the severity of the break. For this reason, and since my opponent has not specified, I will show that "Breaking and entering to protect animal rights should not be allowed". I chose this since this seems the crime most often committed by animal rights activists.

2: Said crime should not be tolerated for the following reasons:

a)The law was put in place to protect private property and if we as a society ignore one crime, that will lead to use ignoring another and another and another ad nauseam. This lack of regard for the constructs of our society is in no way good since our delicate culture is based upon the upholding of the rules and if these rules are broken, the social fabric unravels.

b)When breaking the aforementioned law, there is a big risk for harm of either the owner of the building or the person committing the crime. The owner of the building can be injured if they just so happen to stroll down stairs and see the crime being committed, the criminal may feel flustered and act out thus harming the victim. Another scenario would be if the victim had a weapon and felt that they were being sufficiently threated as to use self defense. This type of action could maim or even kill the criminal.

Here we have two impacts, the unraveling of our social fabric and the injury or death of the criminal/victim. But here I leave my opponent with a question, if there is a risk of a human being killed for whatever "right" is being stood up for, is that fine? In other words, do human lives out weigh those of other animals?